Stay On Point When Discussing Ban on the Non-Essential Use of Pesticides

GOOD NEWS! The Manitoba Government is finally going to follow the lead of the other 6 provinces in Canada which have put in place bans on the aesthetic or non-essential use of pesticides. This is a first step that Greens have been calling for years.

I will admit that I would like to see a phasing out of pesticide use for agricultural practices. The organics industry is the fastest growing segment of the food industry, and I would like to see support for Manitoba farmers to go after this burgeoning consumer demand.

But I think it will be important to stay on point. The issue at hand is a ban not on the agricultural use of pesticides, but on the aesthetic use of pesticides for non-essential purposes.

Robert Arnason's February 16, 2012 article “Pesticide ban position questioned
” in the Western Producer provides an example of the misdirected, misleading and misguided arguments that are going to be put forward by industry hacks – veiled or otherwise.

Below is a much a lengthened version of a 400 word letter I sent to the Arnason and the Western Producer news room, and copied to the Minister of Conservation and Canadian Cancer Society.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Robert Arnason and Editorial Staff at the Western Producer:

It is the Manitoba Government, not the Canadian Cancer Society, which has chosen to move forward with a ban on the aesthetic use of pesticides. Your February 16, 2011 article would have been much more informative had it not misdirected its focus.

Yes, people should investigate the expenditures, activities, and registration status of any charity before giving; this applies as much to the Canadian Cancer Society as it does to Charity Intelligence, itself is a registered charity. The misdirected and veiled attack on the Canadian Cancer Society was disgusting and defamatory (although yes the defamatory statement is likely shield by a legal defense – that doesn't make it any less despicable).

Yes, civil society organizations (charities, trade associations, non-governmental organizations, lobby groups, etc.) play an important role is pushing for new policies, and it is fair to consider these influences. The focus, however was entirely one-sided.

Crop-Life Canada – a non-profit agro-industry trade association funded and directed by large agricultural corporations like Dow AgroScience, Syngenta, Monsanto, Bayer Crop Science, Du Pont and others – has for years vociferously lobbied against a ban on the aesthetic use of pesticides.

If the Canadian Cancer Society is lobbying for a ban on the aesthetic use pesticides to raise revenues, then is it not equally obvious that Crop-Life Canada is lobbying against such a ban to protect the profits of the industry it represents?

It is also misleading to focus on: is there “a conclusive link between pesticides and human cancer?” Without also posing the reverse: “is it conclusive that there is absolutely no link between pesticides and human cancer?” Neither question can be answered with scientific certainty, but there is a growing body of epidemiological evidence finding an association between pesticide use and certain diseases, including cancer.

To provide a snippet from an excellent Paths Less Travelled (February 12, 2012) blog post:

“..."GM Soy. Sustainable? Responsible?" ... documented the findings of a commission conducted by the central Argentinian State of Chaco in 2010. ... childhood cancer rates tripled in the town of La Leonesa and birth defects increased almost fourfold over the entire state. Those results corresponded with greatly increased spraying of glyphosate and other agrochemicals in the region during that period.

Scientific studies referred to in the paper, cite an association between glyphosate and at least two kinds of cancer, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, (NHL), a cancer of the blood. An increased rate of NHL had been repeatedly observed among farmers for years, suggesting an association between use of pesticides, including glyphosate and the risk of the disease.

...a graduate student at the University of Manitoba, Jennifer Magoon, found statistically significant links between the use of crop sprays and serious health problems with infants born in farming areas of the province where such sprays were commonly used.

Those problems included low birth weights, spina biffida, respiratory distress, jaundice, Down syndrome, cleft palate, retinal degeneration and cataracts. Her findings do not mention Roundup. But she singled out herbicides as the class of crop chemical she was most concerned with.”

This epidemiological evidence does not conclusively prove pesticides cause cancer, other factors could be at play, but it does raise enough alarm, as the end note in the article acknowledges, for the Canadian Medical Association to suggest “pesticide use be minimized.”

It was misguided to confound the issue by suggesting that a ban on the non-essential use of pesticides was intended to apply to the agricultural use pesticides. The issue at hand is a ban not on the agricultural use of pesticides, but on the aesthetic use of pesticides.

Eliminating the non-essential use of pesticides would seem to be a logical starting point to minimize the use of pesticides.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again I want to reiterate, I envision a world where organic, better yet bio-dynamic agriculture, once again replaces agriculture dependent on synthetic chemical inputs. An agricultural system that respects the people and the planet, while still being profitable for farmers.

For those that read this blog regularly you will know I am as critical of this NDP Government, as any. I want more than just a limited ban on pesticide use, but sometimes it is important to support the Government on a good initiative. This allows the best leverage to push for the strongest provisions possible. We cannot allow this to be the weakest legislation of its kind in the country – we should strive for the most stringent pesticides regulations among our provincial counterparts. To achieve this it is best if we are unified in our call.

We have seen that opponents are going to try to confuse the issue. This is why I think we must stay focused on the specific proposal at hand: a ban on the non-essential use of pesticides (i.e. Non-agricultural use). We must remain unified and avoid sidetracking ourselves - our opposition is only to happy to do it for us.

Where is Manitoba's Commitment to Kyoto?

SENT ELECTRONICALLY DECEMBER 13, 2011

Dear Acting Conservation Minister Dave Chomiak,

I am absolutely appalled at your recent comments to CBC's Michaylo Prystupa regarding Manitoba's efforts to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.[1]

In 2008 your government enshrined into law the Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Act. This Act enshrined into law a target of 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. This 2012 target was deliberately set because it mirrored Canada's national Kyoto Protocol GHG reduction target. This government was applauded for enshrining a Kyoto Protocol-compliant target into law in 2008, and while I still have many criticisms in regards to effectiveness of existing policies intended to reduce GHG emissions and the non-existence of other policies needed to reduce GHG emissions, I will acknowledge that at least having a Kyoto-compliant target showed the most minute modicum of leadership

The fact that this Government will fail to meet its target is not surprising, in fact failing to meet GHG reduction targets seems to be a habit of this provincial NDP government. The previous 2002 target stated in Kyoto and Beyond: Meeting and Exceeding Our Kyoto Targets was "...reductions of up to 18 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010, and reductions of up to 23 per cent by 2012." [2]

But to publicly announce amidst international negotiations in Durban (UNFCC COP17) that your Government was abandoning its Kyoto-compliant target was most irresponsible! Even the climate change denying federal Conservative party had the sense to recognize that it would be foolish to formally announce its withdrawal from Kyoto Protocol during the Durban negotiations. Did you give thought to the impacts that this announcement might have on the ongoing international negotiations?

With a federal Canadian Government that refuses to take sincere action on reducing GHG emissions, it is even more incumbent on provincial governments to show leadership and to forge ahead, with or without the help of their federal counterparts. Given the constant downgrading of Manitoba's emission reduction targets, the ill-timing of this current announcement, and the fact that Gary Doer is now a slick oil-sands salesperson for the Canadian Government,[3][4] it is hard not to think that this current provincial NDP government is purposefully attempting to sabotage any sincere action towards GHG reductions.

I will also point out that the Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Act, which enshrined the 6% below 1990 levels by 2012 target in law, has never been fully enacted. Sections 7, 8, 11, and 12 will only come into force in October 1, 2012, three months before this government will, by your own acknowledgement, fail to reach the 2012 target enshrined by the law. What is most disappointing is that these unproclaimed sections relate to government operations regarding green building standards for buildings owned or funded by the Government of Manitoba, and fuel efficiency standards for Government of Manitoba vehicles. If the Government itself is unwilling to take leadership, then what message does this send to the rest of the Manitoba?

Now I recognize there was also an acknowledgement that a Manitoba energy plan shall be forthcoming in the New Year. Of course, as with anything, the devil is in the details, but I acknowledge that Manitoba is desperately in need of a comprehensive energy plan, so I look forward to seeing what your Government brings forth in the New Year. I would also like to know what opportunities will be given to the public to provide input on the provincial energy plan?

When then Premier Gary Doer first announced the Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Act, he stated that “...our goal is to reduce emissions here in Manitoba,”[5] so it is somewhat surprising to hear you blame the failure to meet our target on the basis that Manitoba was not able to receive credit for the emissions it reduces abroad through export of hydro-electric energy. I acknowledge that displacing American coal plants has advantages, and helps to reduce global GHG emissions, but presumably this is done because it is profitable to do so; therefore we are not exporting energy as a benevolent act to combat global warming, but because it is in the best interest of our Crown utility, Manitoba Hydro. I, like many Manitobans do not think we should be rewarded for doing something we would have done anyways, rather we should be rewarded for taking concrete actions that reduce emissions here in Manitoba.

Also, I would point that your references to the installation of wind-generated-electricity in Manitoba in regards to actions that reduce Manitoba's emissions seems misleading. The only way that this could be true is if your government was to acknowledge that emissions from hydro-electric reservoirs are higher than you presently acknowledge. Is this the interpretation that I should take? I am a firm believer that we need expanded wind-generating capacity in Manitoba, and I am critical that your government will seemingly also fail to meet the target of 1000 megawatts of installed wind generating capacity by 2015. However installing wind energy will not at present significantly reduce Manitoba's emissions. There are many other good reasons for pursuing alternative renewable energy, such as wind and solar, particularly micro-generation, but in the context of Manitoba these arguments are more about energy autarchy than significant GHG reductions.

Lastly, the fact that Manitoba is a relatively small GHG emitter is also no excuse for failure to reduce our emissions by 6%. While there are some unique challenges in that the bulk of Manitoba's emissions originate from a larger number of small disparate emitters, rather than a smaller number of large emitters, it should also be acknowledged that our relatively low level of emissions in comparison to other provinces means that a 6% decline is that much smaller of a reduction that needs to be achieved.

Answers in Manitoba need to focus on behavioural change and demand management, particularly for our transportation and agricultural sectors. Further, and much more significant investments in public transportation, possibly even making it fare-free may entice urban people to drive less. Following Saskatchewan's lead in implementing a crown-owned inter-city bus carrier may likewise improve access to transport in rural areas. Likewise truly supporting a Manitoba transition towards organic and locally based agricultural market can help to reduce the GHG emissions related to the transport of food. Moving away from the production of and application of synthetic fertilizers, would also help to reduce Manitoba's GHG emissions.

There are many opportunities for Manitobans to both better themselves and the Manitoba economy, while also lessening our impact on the planet. I would be happy to sit down and discuss this further if you wish.

The 6% reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels should only be a starting point, followed by further reductions in the future. It is fair enough for this government to acknowledge it's failure, although further consideration to the timing of said announcement should have been given, but the objectives should not be abandoned. Instead, it should be at minimum be reaffirmed that we remain committed to reducing emissions below 6% below 1990 levels, a new target date should be set, and we should look at why we failed to achieve our objective and attempt to learn from this failure. I truly hope that this promised new energy plan will be an attempt at accomplishing this.

In summation, I would like answers to the following questions:

1. When will the new energy plan be announced?
2. How will the public be able to provide input on this new energy plan?
3. Will your government make the basis and underlying assumptions for Manitoba GHG emissions public? If so how?
4. Can you provide a break down of how the $145 million, promised alongside the Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Act was spent, including if any of the promised money was not spent?
5. In your Government's opinion, what are the annual average emissions from hydro-electric reservoirs, if any?
6. Will your government remain committed to reducing Manitoba based emissions significantly below 1990 levels? Is so by what date do you now expect to reduce emissions below 1990 levels and by how much?

I thank you in advance for a timely response to these questions. Should you need further clarification on any of my concerns and/or questions, or should you want to discuss the matter personally, I would be happy to sit down and meet and discuss matters over the phone. My e-mail and cell-phone number can be found below.

Sincerely,

James R. Beddome
Leader, Green Party of Manitoba

References:


1 Mychalo Prystupa “Manitoba Fails Its Own Climate Change Law” CBC (December 6, 2011), online:
2 Government of Manitoba “ Kyoto and Beyond: Meeting and Exceeding Our Kyoto Targets: 2002”, online:
3 Gary Doer's August 14, 2009 speech at the NDP convention in Nova Scotia (see 20:05 to 22:17), online:
4 Konrad Yakabuski “Gary Doer sells oil sands from coast to U.S. coast” Globe and Mail (August 24, 2011), online:
5 Transcript of Bill 15 Press Release (April 11, 2008), Manitoba Legislature, Winnipeg, MB (pp. 12-13), online:

Wolseley Was Rob'd

I am proud of the Green Party of Manitoba effort in the 2011 election campaign. With a very limited buget we fielded a record number of candidates, finished with a record number of third place finishes, gained the credibility of being included in the televised debate for the first time ever, and garnered more than 10,000 votes. But unfortunately we were not able to win a seat.

Not being able to represent the people of Wolseley stings! If I may jest for a moment, Wolseley got Rob'd.

Jesting aside, I called Rob on election night and congratulated him and we agreed to sit down and see how we can work together.

Issues that I can see myself working with Rob on include:

-Keeping new genetically engineered crops out of Manitoba, as I have had some previous e-mail correspondence with Rob in regards to that mater.

-Working to change animal husbandry practices, particularly the practices of confined animal feeding operations.

-Working to amend the Highway Traffic Act to clarify how practicable, is as “right as practicable.” Working to create clear legislated standards would work to the benefit of cyclists and motorists alike.

-Working to demonstrate that free-fare transit is a sensible idea that will save money over the long-term – particularly after the savings from to MPI, hospital, and emotional trauma costs from reduced traffic congestion and collisions are taken into account.

-For years Greens have been lobbying to eliminate, or at least significantly decrease the use of pesticides, and a logical place to start is a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides as is done in or in the works in the majority of Canadian provinces. In the dying days of the last Government, which was of course re-elected they promised to enact legislation preventing the cosmetic use of pesticides in consultation with industry stakeholders. This later qualification is worrisome, and I hope to work with Rob to ensure that Manitoba brings in the strongest and most comprehensive legislation possible in regards to prohibiting the use of pesticides in particular circumstances.

There of course are many additional issues that need addressed - too many to address in a single blog entry - I encourage all readers to share additional suggestions with me.

The point beng is that I am not going anywhere. I live in West Broadway, I will continue to serve as Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba and work with Mantobans to create a better future.

Thanks to the many people who supported the Green Party of Manitoba campaign with their money and time. Thank you to the 10,000+ Manitobans who voted Green. Together we are slowly but surely making progress.

Tax Credits Are No Way to Fund Post-Secondary Education

I attended a debate On March 2, 2011 hosted by the University of Winnipeg Politics Society, as the Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba. Representatives from all four other political parties were present. The possibility of a University of Winnipeg faculty strike was raised several times and was clearly on the minds of students and faculty. Other concerns raised included: student debt, rising tuition fees, predictability of funding and corporate involvement in universities.

At the debate I tried to point out that while it would take time to move towards a system of universal access to education it clearly could be done.

Education is after all one of the classic examples of a public good. Education is a huge economic driver! And this warrants subsidization because of the overall positive benefits. An educated population drives innovation and facilitates the creation of new ideas leading to better ways of doing things. A vibrant economy is created when individuals, businesses, and organizations have access to educated population. Society needs people of all gambits: tradespeople, businesspeople, medical professions, teaching professionals, agriculturalists, and these skill sets and so many more must be learned somewhere.

College or University education is increasingly required in today's job market. European countries, particularly Scandinavian nations, manage to deliver extremely low-cost or even free education. Quebec delivers education to its residents at a substantially subsidized rate. So what is stopping us from taking similar action in Manitoba?

Now the common response to this is that we cannot afford to lower tuition fees, but is this actually true?

Using 2009 Statistics Canada data, we can see that Revenues of Universities and Colleges in Manitoba is ~$1.116 billion:

-The Manitoba government contributions ~$559 million, or around half of the revenue;

-The Canadian government provides ~$93 million, which adds up to less than 10% of revenue;

-Students pay ~$214 million in tuition fees, contributing to around 20% of revenue;
Local governments in Manitoba contribute ~$12 million;

-And the remainder is generated by Universities and Colleges themselves.

Looking at these numbers, clearly the federal government has not pulled its fair share since cutbacks in the mid-nineties.

That said education is a provincial responsibility, so the province needs to be willing to go it alone if the Federal Government fails to cooperate. Now to be fair the NDP have increase funding for post-secondary education, but these increases have quickly been eaten up.

A 'Dipper' Post-Secondary Education pamphlet handed out at the debate claimed an “80% increase in annual provincial funding for Manitoba's colleges and universities since 1999 – while the consumer price index rose only 22%.”

What the pamphlet neglected to address is that according to Council on Post-Secondary Education 2010 data between 1999 and 2009 university and college enrolment increased by around 35% depending on whether it is calculated on the basis of absolute number of students, or number of full-time equivalent students.
This adds up to a roughly 65% increase in costs, once the 22% CPI inflation and 35% increase in enrolment are factored together.

The same 'Dipper' pamphlet also bragged that the “Manitoba tuition fee rebate” and “Federal tax credits” equated to “An excellent deal for Manitoba students and Manitoba's economy.”

With respect, I could not disagree more!

Federally post-secondary education tax credits are worth $1.8 billion across Canada. Re-directing this money away from tax credits and funnelling it directly towards post-secondary institutions, and student loan, grants and bursary programs could unleash desperately needed funding for Universities across Canada.

In Manitoba the situation is much the same provincial tax credits for post-secondary education cost Manitoba about $25 million per year, and the new tuition fee rebate is estimated to cost up to $90 million per year.

The NDP Government commissioned report on post-secondary education, written by Dr. Ben Levin, explains the problem with tax credits quite well:

“...evidence suggests that the tax credits are not effective in encouraging enrolment in higher education ... Students from higher income families are the main beneficiaries of tax credits... for students of modest means the credits are not helpful because the money does not arrive when it is needed. Cash at the start of the year is much more important than the promise of a refund or credit in the future... about two-thirds of the value of the credits claimed in Canada each year is not used by students in the year earned. Instead, these amounts are transferred to a parent or carried forward to a future year. This means that most of the benefit, already indirect, is not available even within a year of the expense being incurred. ... Accordingly, accessibility would be improved if funds were used for direct assistance to students rather than for tax credits .” (p. 32-33)

I love Manitoba! As a student presently studying law in Manitoba, with the intention of establishing a Manitoba practice I will likely qualify for the 60% tuition fee rebate. So I personally stand to benefit, but from a public policy perspective I have to wonder: is a $90 million dollar tax cut - worth more than 40% of the value of annual tuition paid by Manitoba students - the best use of government revenue?

As a student I will receive up to an additional $250 tax credit in 2010, that will increase to a maximum of $500 in subsequent years. But why not just reduce tuition by an equivalent amount? I need the cash in fall when I am starting school, not in spring after I file my taxes.

Once I graduate and begin working in Manitoba I will be eligible for a 60% rebate of my tuition fees over as little as six years or as long as twenty years. But few graduates think about tax liability when selecting a new job; they are much more concerned with opportunities for advancement and the terms of compensation. Is this tax credit really going to attract the best and the brightest, or is it just going to give up to a $25,000 tax cut to people like myself who are likely to stay regardless of the tax fee rebate?

Even if retention is the aim of this tuition fee rebate it would seem to be more logical to target rebates for needed professionals, such as doctors and nurses in Northern and rural Manitoba. The rebate could be tied to a contractual agreements that would require the individual benefited from the the rebate to service needed areas. Such a targeted approach would seem to be more effective and economical.

For me the money spent on post-secondary tax credits could be spent more wisely. Tuition fees could be lowered, universities and colleges could be given more funding to retain and reward great staff and ensure that best technology is available thereby improving the quality of my education, funding to student aid could be increased so that more students qualify, and there is so much more that could be done if we moved away from the idea of using tax credits to fund post-secondary education.

OPEN LETTER & PETITION TO SELINGER & STRUTHERS - Possible Introduction of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa into Manitoba

Please sign my petition at: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gpm_gmo/
Full text of petition copied following sources.


Dear Premier Selinger and Agriculture Minister Struthers,

I am writing this letter in the wake of United States Department of Agriculture`s (USDA) approval of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa, in hopes that the Manitoba Government will take action to prevent the introduction of GE alfalfa in Manitoba.

Ensuring that alfalfa in Manitoba remains GE free is vital to the growing organic food industry in Manitoba. Alfalfa serves as both a nitrogen fixing cover crop, and an important source of feed for livestock. If GE alfalfa enters Manitoba it will contaminate non-GE alfalfa and this will mean a loss of certification and income for Manitoba's burgeoning organic food sector. It is also noteworthy that 107 national and local farmer and consumer organizations accross Canada were signatories to the No GE Alfalfa Campaign. The Manitoba contingent included: Manitoba Forage Council, Organic Producers Association of Manitoba, Robertson - Stow Farms Ltd., JUST Community Market Co-operative Ltd., and Keystone Grain Ltd. - in additon to numerous national organizations that represent Manitoba farmers.

The Canadian government and CFIA have already approved Monsanto’s GM alfalfa, but Monsanto has not yet applied for “variety registration” -- the next step before the crop can be commercially grown in Canada. Passing the buck along to the Federal Government or the Canadian Food and Inspection Agency (CFIA) is simply unacceptable! The province of Manitoba should be lobbying the Canadian, American, Ontarian, Saskatchewan, North Dakotan, and Minnesotan governments to avoid growing GE alfalfa because GE contamination does not respect political borders - bees can carry pollen several miles, and the cross-border sale of hay and livestock could also cause contamination.

The Green Party of Manitoba (GPM) implores the Manitoba government to pass legislation which makes Manitoba a GE free zone – at least for those crops which have not yet been contaminated. As indicated in our 2007 platform if elected the GPM would: “Ban agricultural biotechnology in Manitoba and require labelling of all products sold in Manitoba containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).”

The GPM is furthermore initiating an ongoing educational campaign regarding the pracautionary principle as a reasoned approach to public health and safety policy, especially in relation to our food systems. Under the precautionary principle, the onus to prove food safety or the safety of other new products being introduced into the marketplace. Unfortunately, the increasing privatization of research has called into question the impartiality of corporate-driven research, as the case of Health Canada whistleblower Shiv Chopra and countless others have shown. The long-term safety of genetically-modified organisms on human and ecosystem health have simply not been proven according to verifiable scientific principles.

As the Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiaves (MAFRI) website page Alfalfa Hay5 acknowledges, in addition to the United States presently alfalfa from Manitoba is exported to: Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Taiwan. If Manitoba alfalfa is contaminated with GE alfalfa then these export markets may be closed to Manitoba producers.
Manitoba agricultural producers, particularly organic producers, have lost the opportunity to sell their produce and save their seed through the introduction of GM canola. Most canola grown on the Canadian prarires is gentically modified (GM), and even those who do not plant GM canola likely have GM canola in their crops due to cross-breeding and volunteer canola plants. This has largely denied organic certification for Manitoban canola growers and caused restrictions on the exports of Canadian canola.

In contrast, agricultural producers in Prince Edward Island, where GM canola is not grown, fulfill a demand for oilseed that is not contaminated with genetically modified crops and have seen an influx in orders from Japan as of late – they are even marketing the oil in Japan with a picture of P.E.I. on the bottle, thereby promoting the province of P.E.I. as well.

Consumers do not want GE foods, and at minimal they want the right to know if they are eating GE food or not. As reported by CBC's Marketplace “...numerous surveys... [indicate] up to 90 per cent of Canadians want mandatory labelling of GM [Genetically Modified or Engineered] food.”

It also seems worth noting that your federal NDP counterparts have introduced Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm)8, is scheduled for third reading today, February 9th, 2011. The bill would support Canadian farmers by requiring that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

So, will you now do the right thing and stand with your federal counterparts along with small, family organic producers? Or will you side with the Conservative Party of Canada, Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry on this critical issue?

I look forward to a prompt response regarding what the Manitoba Government intends to do regarding the threats posed by new GE crops, including but not limited to alfalfa.

Respectfully,

James R. Beddome
Leader, Green Party of Manitoba
leader@greenparty.mb.ca

-Sent Electronically (why waste paper?) to Selinger and Struthers on February 9th-

SOURCES:

Unites States Department of Agriculture press release (January 27, 2011). USDA Announces Decision to Fully Deregulate Roundup Ready Alfalfa, availabel online at: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2011%2F01%2F0035.xml retrieved February 2, 2011.

Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (March 23, 2006). Position Paper on the Introduction of Genetically Modified Alfalfa, available online at: http://www.cban.ca/About/Priorities/GE-Alfalfa/Position-Paper-on-the-Introduction-of-Genetically-Modified-Alfalfa retrieved February 2nd, 2011.

National Organic Coalition (March 3, 2010). No to GE Alfalfa Campaign, available online at: http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/GE-Crops-and-Foods-Not-on-the-Market/Alfalfa/National-Organic-Coalition-Submission-on-Alfalfa retrieved February 2nd, 2011.

Green Party of Manitoba 2007 Platform (pg. 12), available online at: http://greenparty.mb.ca/GPM/pdf/GPM-Platform-2007.pdf retrieved February 2, 2011.

Government of Manitoba website: Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Alfalfa Hay, available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/forages/bjd29s01.html retrieved February 2nd, 2011.

CBC News (December 8, 2010). Japan eager for P.E.I.'s non-GMO canola, available online at: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2010/11/08/pei-japan-gmo-canola-584.html#ixzz1629nYbeCwhere retrieved February 2nd, 2011.

CBC (March 6, 2002) Marketplace, available online at: http://archives.cbc.ca/lifestyle/food/topics/1597-10956/ retrieved Fenruary 2nd, 2011.

House of Commons of Canada, Bill C-474: An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (1st Reading November 2, 2009). Availalbe online at: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=4330153&file=4 retireved Februrary 2, 2011.

PETITION
TO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA:
The background to this petition is as follows:
1. January 27, 2011 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved genetically engineered (GE) pesticide resistant alfalfa for commercial use.
2. The Canadian government has already approved GE pesticide resistant alfalfa, but variety registration -- -- the next step before the crop can be commercially grown in Canada -- has not yet been applied for.
3. 107 national and local farmer and consumer organizations accross Canada, including Manitoba Forage Council and Organic Producers Association of Manitoba were signatories to the No GE Alfalfa Campaign sent to the USDA March 2010.
4. Experience with othe GE crops such as Canola and Flax has shown that GE crops contaminate non-GE crops, and this contamination closes off important export markets for producers – parttcularly organic producers who also lose their certification from GE contamination.
5. GE crop contamination does not respect political boundaries.
6. The use of pesticide resistant crops has led to the development of pesticide resistant weeds thereby leading to the use of more not less pesticides.
7. Producers right to save seed is jeopardized by GE crop contamination and proprietary restirictions against saving seeds following GE contamination.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
1. To pass legislation which prevents new GE crops from being grown in Manitoba.
2. To require the labelling of all products composed of GE substances and sold in Manitoba.
3. Lobby the Canadian, American, Ontarian, Saskatchewan, North Dakotan, and Minnesotan governments to avoid growing GE alfalfa, or at least create border buffer zones, to prevent cross-border contamination.

SIGN ONLINE AT: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gpm_gmo/
BUT I will aslo need your ink signatures - sorry petition guidelines of the Manitoba Legislature.

Manitoba Consumers Pay More Than American Utilities

- A Closer Look At Manitoban Electrical Exports & Future Hydro Development

The construction of Bipole III is very much tied to the idea of building new dams in Manitoba's North. If the $5.5 billion 695 MW Keeyask dam and $7.7 billion 1485 MW Conawapa dam are built a Bipole IV and V will likely also be needed. So we as Manitobans need to ask ourselves do we need all this power? And do we need all this debt?

Most Manitobans seem to be under the false impression that Manitoba Hydro charges more per kilowatt hour (Kwh) for power exported to the U.S. than charged to local consumers.

Basic charges and rates vary among customer types in Manitoba: residential rates start at 6.38 cents per Kwh and ratchet up as demand increases, small and medium size general service customer rates start at 6.84 cents per Kwh and ratchet down as demand increases, large size general use customers pay less than 3 cents per Kwh but face additional demand charges.

In contrast Manitoba Hydro receives from 5.4 to 6 cents per Kwh for long-term fixed price contracts, and 2.4 to 4.5 cents per Kwh for power sold on the short-term spot markets. Manitoba Hydro's 59th Annual Report (pp. 100-101) shows: roughly 13.6 billion Kwh in annual sales to Manitoban general service customers grossed Hydro $669 million; nearly 7 billion Kwh in annual sales to Manitoban residential customers grossed Hydro $477 million; and of the nearly 10 billion Kwh in net exported electrcity Hydro grossed 427 million.

Now exports are bulk sales and the price to individual residents and businesses in Manitoba reflect the added costs of distribution lines, converter stations, maintenance costs, etc. Higher costs to Manitoban customers is therefore justified to a certain extent. Additionally revenue from export sales is used to subsidize domestic rates (not to mention helping spendtrhift governments balance the books from time to time).

But what about the risk of building these new dams in Manitoba's North?

There is obvious financial risk. The billions of dollars of debt being accrued to construct dams largely for export outside of Manitoba creates the risk that adverse fluctuations in currency and/or energy prices could threaten Hydro's profitability. Likewise, with a warming planet the threat of drought increases and lower water levels also threaten Hydro's profitability. Additionally if water levels or delays in dam construction result in Manitoba being unable to meet contractual power sale obligations, this could also harm Hydro financially. Since we the taxpayers underwrite Hydro's debt, we will be on the hook if Hydro defaults.

There is also the ecological and social costs of futher dam construction. Flooding, mercury poisoning, shoreline and river embankment destabilization, habitat disruption, introduction of new species in foreign water systems, and greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs are some of the ecological costs of large-scale hydro-developments.

Socially, Manitoba Hydro certainly has a checkered past in regards to its relations with First Nations peoples. Construction of Dams in the 1960s and 1970 resulted in flooding, mercury poisoning, and the relocation of entire First Nation communities. The new model, set by the Wuskatim dam presently under construction, appears to be one of “engaging” First Nation communities in so-called “joint partnerships”. However observers, such as Peter Kulchyski of the University of Manitoba's Native Studies Department describe the Wuskatim agreements as “deeply flawed” and note how Nelson House band council came to power in a “deeply divided election.” Blocakdes of the Wuskatim Dam construction site in the summer of 2009 is further evidence of the continuing divisiveness of Hydro development in Manitoba's North.

These risks and external costs should be enough to give us pause, or atleast to argue for greater scrutiny of Hydro's risk management. Fortunately the Manitoba Public Utilities Board is presently undergoing a review of this very same issue. Manitobans would be wise to pay close attention to the hearings as they develop.

Getting serious about energy conservation in Manitoba, rather than patting ourselves on the back for a baseless A+ is a good place to start. Over the past ten years per customer electrcity demand in Manitoba has been relatively stable. Manitobans remain among the most wasteful users of electricity in the world. Hydro has some incentive to reduce energy use to free up additional electrical capacity which could then be exported. But it is the Government of Manitoba rather than Hydro which needs to take the lead on this. Helping consumeres to reduce electrical consumption is good government policy. It will help residents and businesses to save money, and it can avoid the financial, social and ecological costs of additional Hydro development.

Editors Note: I will return this issue again, but in the meantime I encourage your feedback on this issue. (jbeddome at yahoo.com)

Quick Update: Energy in Manitoba

Further to my last post "East, West, or Windtower", a couple of notworthy updates.

1. TRANSMISSION LOSS FROM NORTHERN DAMS -

“More than 10 per cent of the power generated by the next generation of mega-dams will vanish when it's shipped south down the three Bipole transmission lines, including the contentious west-side line.
... Once Keeyask and Conawapa are up and running in 2023, total line losses will grow by 254 megawatts to 479 megawatts,” according to Winnipeg Free Press (Jan. 18, '11) freedom of information requests.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/premium/mega-dams-to-lose-megawatts-line-loss-increases-with-distance-travelled-114079764.html (subcription required).

2. IS CHEAP ENERGY A GOOD THING? OR WOULD A LOW INCOME PROGRAM BE MORE EFFICIENT?

A November 2010 report submitted to the Public Utilities Board (PUB) by Green Action Centre and TREE (Time to Respect Earth’s Ecosystems) argues for:
-A maximum affordability level for energy bills set at six percent of income.
-Subsidies to low-income households to offset energy bills above this amount, based the customer’s previous average energy bills
-Low income households would have the incentive and opportunity to increase conservation as the benefit is fixed for a period of time based on previous usage rates.
-Manitoba Hydro and all its customers would benefit as the subsidy could be reduced over time, taking into account reduced consumption as a result of conservation measures already taken.

I commend this report for challenging the conventional wisdom that cheap energy is always a good thing, while at the same time being mindful of the tenets of social justice.

“Revenue from these exports is currently used to keep rates as low as possible for all Manitoba consumers, including residential, commercial, and industrial power users. Our cheap energy undermines our province’s commitments to conservation, while doing a poor job at meeting equity goals. In fact, to the extent that higher energy bills often correlate to larger home sizes and higher incomes, these subsidies are regressive and benefit wealthier Manitoba families. (Emphasis added.)

Green Action Centre argues instead that at least some of the proceeds from our exports could be used to support a low-income energy affordability program that would give all Manitoba families, regardless of income, the opportunity to keep their energy bills affordable.”

http://greenactioncentre.ca/content/electricity-how-affordable-is-cheap/

http://greenactioncentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Home-Energy-Affordability-in-Manitoba-A-Low-Income-Affordability-Program-for-Manitoba-Hydro.pdf (Full Report)

East, West, or Wind Tower? -Green Leader Exposes Manitoba Energy Myths-

Manitoba Hydro (Hydro), and more specifically the issue of where to route Bipole III, is likely to be one of the major issues in the upcoming 2011 Manitoba General Election. It is unfortunate this binary “east side” vs. “west side” has dominated the public discourse, because the larger questions about how we use, produce, distribute, and sell energy within and beyond Manitoba remain largely unasked.

Hydro's $8.5 billion debt is the single largest debt obligation of Manitoba – accounting for just under 37% of provincial debt obligations. To be fair Hydro is at present successfully managing its debt, but the taxpayers of Manitoba will be on the hook if Hydro failed to meet debt obligations. Over the next decade this debt could easily soar above $20 billion as Hydro anticipates spending an additional $18 billion, largely on the construction of new dams in Manitoba's North.

Hydro already produces enough electricity for Manitoba's needs – although we do at times import fossil fuel based energy. This means that new energy sources are largely being developed in Manitoba for the purpose of increasing electrical exports. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing, but this does mean that we as Manitoba taxpayers bear the risk if these export markets become unprofitable for whatever reason.

By far the cheapest way to free up more energy for export – or to prevent the need to import dirty energy – is to use energy more efficiently. Manitoba's per capita consumption of electricity is among the highest in the World! For all the NDP and Hydro rhetoric about getting an A+ in energy efficiency, if you look at Hydro's financial returns you can see that for the most part energy demand per customer (for both elecctricity and natural gas) has remained more or less stable in Manitoba over the past ten years. So what exactly did we get the A+ for?

On January 10, 2010 the Manitoba Government announced that the St. Joseph Wind Farm (St. Joseph) was operational. The 138 megawatt (MW) wind farm was built in ten months at a cost of of $345 million ($260 million in financing was provided by Hydro which will be repaid in energy).

A comparison of St. Joseph with the $1.6 billion 200MW Wuskwatim dam reveals that that wind-generation is cheaper than hydro-electric energy. Yes it is true that Hydro operates at an average efficiency of 65-75%, while wind operates at an average efficiency of 40%. But even after this is taken into account St. Joseph cost $6.25 million per megawatt (MW) of average deliverable capacity – only costing to Hydro $4.7 million per MW – whereas in contrast Wuskwatim cost $10.666 million per MW of average deliverable capacity.

Now granted there is also a need to create the infrastructure to connect the wind energy to the grid, and wind energy has intermittency issues. There is however also lower transmission losses when the energy is produced in Southern Manitoba, which is both closer to export markets and where most energy is consumed in Manitoba, rather than hydro dams located in Manitoba's North.

Manitobans are smart innovative people! We are constrined not by the technological capacity of better energy efficiency, or the feasibility of non-fossil fuel based alternative energy such as wind and solar, but by the limits of our own creativity. It starts with having an open, honest, and frank public discourse about energy. The point here isn't to provide all the answers, but to point out that a more thorough debate on energy use, production, and distribution is drastically needed in Manitoba.

Unfortunately this debate is impeded by the political rhetoric, and energy myths propagated by Manitoba's three other political parties.

James Beddome, Leader
Green Party of Manitoba

Calculations:
Wuskwatim - $1,600 million/(200MW *75%) = $10.666 million/MW
St. Joseph - $345 million/(138MW * 40%)= $6.25 million/MW
(When the $95 million Pattern Energy contribution is added into the equation the cost to Hydro for St. Joseph reduces to $4.7 million per MW)

Looking for the real bottom line in the 2010 budget

The most recent budget clearly demonstrates that the current government of Manitoba refuses to accept that economic health and social well being require more than Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

The Selinger Government is trying to convince Manitobans that a $555 million budgetary shortfall is not so bad since our debt to GDP ratio is only 24.4%.
It is not unreasonable to run a deficit during tough times, but the flip side is that you pay down your debts when times are good. Budgets are about planning. This implies reasonably attempting to foresee the future. In this regard, successive decades of NDP and Conservative governments have failed us.

When Greens talk about budgeting, we speak not only about the public coffers, but also about the public goods, natural resources and ecological habitats in this province. A sustainable society is based on understanding our natural capital, and planning appropriately is at the core of the responsible Green approach. Nowhere within the budget documents can you find an impugned value for vital ecological services, such as fresh air, clean water, and fertile soils -- nor for other important indicators of economic health, including healthy families and communities, active citizen involvement, and volunteer contributions.

These non-monetary costs are not captured in the budget, nor are they captured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) statistics, which measure the value of all monetarily exchanged goods and services in an economy. GDP sums all goods and services within an economy without regard for the attributes of the service in question. This leads to some strange results. For instance, the costs associated with a stolen car: filing an insurance claim, paying the deductible, the police hours spent on apprehending or attempting to apprehend the thief, justice related costs (including the cost of the court and any costs of incarceration), plus the costs to repair the vehicle, are all added into GDP. Likewise, costs associated with toxic spills and the resultant clean-up are also positively added into GDP. Obviously we do not want more car thefts and toxic spills, yet these add to the GDP number, and we're told this is a good thing?

There is inherent value in sustaining our planet -- our survival depends on it! Forests ecosystems, for instance, have considerable value. A provincially supported study conducted by the International Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD] valued the ecological services of a section of boreal forest East of Lake Winnipeg at $121.35 to $130.30 million annually (That’s for fresh air, fresh water, carbon sequestering, and various other valuable activities like eco-tourism, hunting, and fishing). If we extrapolate the IISD's valuation, Manitoba's forests yield $854.75 million dollars in ecological services to Manitobans every year.

Though numbers on a spreadsheet cannot adequately capture the tranquil beauty of our irreplaceable and wondrous ecosystems, we need to recognize that these ecosystems have value. They provide clean air, clean water, and habitat for wildlife. Perhaps if economic value was placed on these ecosystems, and these numbers were transparently included in the budget documents, and new well-being indicators such as the Genuine Progress Indicator were also incorporated, Manitobans would have a clearer picture of where we stand. Perhaps this could help facilitate a long-term plan to ensure that Manitobans leave their children and their children’s children a better planet than the one they have inherited.

------------------------------------------------
The IISD study valued 40,000 km² of forested land at 130 million per year (http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2008/ecosystem_valuation.pdf). According to Conservation Manitoba there are 263 000 km² of forested land in Manitoba (http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/forestry/forest-education/general.html). Assuming that 130 million per year for 40,000 hectares is a fair valuation, then the entire forested area in the province yields $854.75 million in ecological services.

Re: Tories Do Bluegrass, Greens Twist and Shout

In the Feb. 3rd article, "Tories Do Bluegrass, Greens Twist and Shout”, printed in The Manitoban, Blaike Hamm makes the absurd argument that having seen no Campus Greens in attendance when James Bezan, Conservative Member of Parliment (MP), spoke at the University of Manitoba on January 18th, that this was evidence of "...indifference to environmental issues at its finest." This is absolutely ridiculous! There is any one of a numerous reasons why the Campus Greens may or may not have been in attendance, such as conflicting academic or work schedules. I can only speak for myself, but I had a group project due and was working on the project with my project partner accordingly.

Hamm should check his information when he criticizes the Campus Greens for submitting three letters. I was absolutely delighted to read Ms. Beaudette's letter, but I do not know her personally, and thus I had no idea that she submitted a letter with similar argumentation. I do know Alon Weinberg, and he was instrumental in the writing and editing of the commentary piece published in my name in the January 27 edition. Afterwards, Alon decided that he wanted to pen a few more of his thoughts and they were subsequently published online.

To state that the issue of prorogation "...does not directly affect the Green Party at all...", is offensive and undemocratic. The operation of Parliament concerns more than simply the 308 MPs. Inside or outside of Parliament all Canadians have an interest in the activities of our government. MPs have a duty to represent all of their constituents, not just those that voted for them. By extension, this means that the present Conservative government needs to govern in the interest of all Canadians, not simply in the interests of the roughly five million Conservative voters. I will accept that this minority government was duly elected in our present first-past-the-post system, but these five million voters only accounted for twenty-two percent of the registered voters who cast their ballot. This government then needs to be mindful of the concerns of the forty per cent of people who did not vote, and those that voted for another party; including, of course, the one million, and growing, Green Voters. To quote Hamm: "I will let the reader come to a conclusion, based on the facts and numbers...", to determine if the Conservatives had adequate support to unilaterally shut-down Parliament at tax-payers expense?

Perhaps more Campus Greens should have been in attendance when Bezan spoke, but what exactly does Mr. Hamm want? Perhaps he wanted Campus Greens to show up and pound a drum whenever someone was trying to speak? That is what the Campus Conservatives did during the December 16th, 2009 Copenhagen rally in front of Winnipeg South MP Rod Bruinooge’s Office.

The sarcastic tone of Mr. Hamm's letter is distasteful. Had Parliament not been shut-down, or if it had been simply adjourned, Mr. Bezan could be continuing with his work as Chair of the Environment Committee, but as with all other Committees it is now shut down post-prorogation. Perhaps Mr. Bezan made some good points regarding what the Conservative Government is doing? Unfortunately, and by Hamm's own admission, "no specifics on environmental policy" were discussed in his letter. The Campus Greens have no problem debating ideas, but if the Campus Conservatives really want to have a "respectful exchange of ideas" then perhaps they should stick to the issues.

Chief Electroral Officer Controversy: Time for some Greens!!!

Well in today's Free Press and in the Winnipeg Sun there is a story about the Opposition Boycott of the process to appoint a new Chief Electoral Officer (CEO)--links below.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/2010/01/21/12565621.html
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/search-for-new-chief-electoral-officer-opposition-storms-out-of-meeting-82349692.html

I was also in attendance, and the Committee even appended my written submission to the official records--I have copied it below for your reference.

It is shameful that our politicians are not seizing this valuable opportunity. Do we need a public inquiry regarding the 1999 election fiasco? ABSOLUTELY! Let's get to the bottom of this, and clear the air one way or another.

However should we be obstructing the process, or should we get on with appointing a new CEO, now that the present CEO has given his notice of resignation. I would argue the latter. Further to this, I think we have the perfect opportunity to make some Legislative changes to the Elections Act which would make the process more impartial, and multi-partisan.

Please enjoy my submission below.


Dear Members of the Legislative Committee on Standing Affairs,
Re: Order of the Day - “To consider the process for hiring a new Chief Electoral Officer”
Date, Time, & Location: January 21st, 2010 at 6pm in Room 255 of the Legislative Building

I. INTRODUCTION: Providing some context.
This committee, The Legislative Committee on Standing Affairs (herein referred to as “Standing Committee”), is meeting to begin the process for hiring a new Chief Electoral Officer (herein referred to as “CEO”). As the Standing Committee is likely aware the previous CEO Richard Balasko had a thirty year career with Elections Manitoba, and held the position of CEO for twenty years. Balasko is leaving amidst cries from opposition party leaders for him to resign or elaborate further on the decision not to proceed with prosecutions against any NDP party member regarding the improper recording of union workers as expenses rather than donations-in-kind during the 1999 election. Balasko for his part has claimed that the law keeps him from speaking openly about the investigation.
This controversy hurts all Manitobans! It is neither good for our democracy, nor is it fortunate, that a long-standing CEO's integrity is in question. There are serious allegations that need to be addressed. The NDP party, and those individuals involved could voluntarily waive their rights to privacy and allow Elections Manitoba the right to release the information regarding the investigation. Or a public inquiry could be called. Either way it is vital to a vibrant democracy to clear the air, one way or another. That said, nothing is conclusive at this moment, and it is more productive to look at the selection of a new CEO as an opportunity to review what other jurisdictions have done in order to determine how we can avoid these types of problems from occurring in the future.

II. LEVEL OF CONSENSUS: Making the appointment process multi-partisan!
Under The Elections Act (C.C.S.M. c. E30, s. 22,23) if the CEO position is vacant, or will be vacated within a year, the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs is to consider candidates and make recommendations to the President of the Executive Council (also known as the Premier), and the Lieutenant Governor is to appoint the CEO. Thus in Manitoba in effect it is the Premier who tells the Lieutenant Governor who to appoint, based upon the the recommendations made by the Standing Committee. In this way we can see that under a majority government the Premier has a considerable amount of sway in the appointment process, and this thereby needlessly politicizes the appointment process.
Under British Columbia's, Election Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 106, s. 4.1) the Lieutenant Governor is to appoint, on recommendation of the Assembly, a CEO who has been unanimously recommended by a Special Committee of the Legislative Assembly. When the Special Committee of the B.C. Legislative Assembly last met in 2002, the Special Committee of the Legislature was largely composed of Liberals but importantly it included Joy McPhail, a B.C. MLA and Provincial Leader of the opposition NDP, thus the perspectives of at least two parties were considered during the selection process. It should be noted that although dominated by Liberals the Special Committee was reflective of the composition of the Assembly at the time which was overwhelmingly Liberal.
Appointment of a CEO in Prince Edward Island, according to the Election Act (R.S.P.E.I.
1988, E-1.1, s. 2), requires a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Legislative Management, and a resolution by the Assembly with more than a 2/3rds approval from the P.E.I Assembly. —thus under this system, with the present NDP majority in Manitoba, some opposition support would still be required to appoint a CEO.
Most provinces do require some form of legislative oversight in the selection process, but the two statues above, stand out as exemplary because they require a high degree of consensus in the appointment process. Therefore in most ordinary circumstances, appointment of a CEO would require approval from multiple political parties. If multiple political parties perspectives are taken into account during the selection process then there will be less of a basis to question the CEOs integrity.
II. LIMITING TERMS: Providing an opportunity for periodic review.
Many provinces also limit the term of a CEO. In most cases CEOs can be be reappointed, but particularly, if as discussed above, a bi-partisan process in used, this can provide a very valuable opportunity to hold the CEOs accountable.
British Columbia (Election Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 106 s. 6), and Saskatchewan (Election Act, R.S.S. 1996, E-6.01, s. 4.4) limit the term of a CEO from the date of appointment until 12 months after the completion of two general elections, and in Alberta (Election Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-1 s. 3.3) the appointment is limited to a 12 months period after a single general election, before re-appointment or retirement is required. New Brunswick (Election Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. E-3, s. 5.1.1, 5.1.2) in contrast limits the term of a CEO to a fifteen year maximum; CEOs are appointed to term ranging from eight years to ten years, and this can be extended for an additional five years before the CEO must retire.

III. CONCLUSION: Looking Forward
Nothing in life is perfect, and it seems fair to mention the above-mentioned provinces have also had their share of controversy. The political controversy in Alberta, surrounding the removal of Lorne Gibson instantly comes to mind. I do not pretend that these other provinces statutes are perfect, rather I think given that we in Manitoba are now beginning the process of selecting a new CEO, that we should look at the strong points of other provinces legislation to craft our own unique “made-in-Manitoba” process. I have highlighted how other provinces have term limits, and a higher degree of consensus in the appointment process. Being in transition from one CEO to another, presents the perfect opportunity to amend the Elections Act accordingly.
I would note that today I received an e-mail from Mr. Blaikie, in which he indicated that he “...would be happy to arrange to meet ... to hear the input that the Green Party of Manitoba has to offer regarding the hiring process of the Chief Electoral Officer.” I thank the Minister for this invite, and will follow up accordingly, but I do believe that the input of political parties needs to be formalized into the process. One idea, similiar to the BC model, might be that CEO candidates would need to receive unanimous approval from a committee composed of a designate from each registered political party in the province.
In any event, what we need to do is to try to de-politicize the process by which the appointment of a CEO is done. Sitting before us we have the perfect opportunity to do so. I hope that you will take these ideas into consideration. I would also be more than happy to speak to the Standing Committee and answer any questions that they might have. I will be in attendance this evening and I can also be reached via e-mail, but post, or phone (with e-mail typically providing the fastest response).

Respectfully Submitted on January 21, 2010,
James R. Beddome, Leader, Green Party of Manitoba
leader@greenparty.mb.ca
1-877-742-4292 (leave message); or direct by cell: 204-990-5195
Box 26023, RPO Maryland, Winnipeg, MB, R3G 3R3

The logger and the caribou are both becoming endangered species in Manitoba!

No one can deny that the forestry industry in Manitoba has fallen on hard times, but for Gary Doer to suggest that the approval of the Dickstone Road through Grass River Provincial Park will somehow stabilize jobs in the forestry industry is disingenuous.

In the background information attached to the Provincial Government's November 21, 2008 News Release "Province Proposes Historic Changes To Preserve Provincial Parks For Future Generations" the government noted that the forestry industry employed approximately 2,500 people, down from the 9,000 employed in 1997.

Since then the lay-offs have intensified with Tolko's announcement of: "...an indefinite curtailment at its [lumber] plant in The Pas, Manitoba..." on January 19, 2009, resulting in an additional 107 forestry workers, through no fault of their own, being laid off.

Despite of the mill workers agreeing to wage roll-backs in January of 2006 when Tolko threatened to close the mill down., Tolko's revenues have fallen by 17.4% in 2006, and 21% in 2007. According to their 2007/2008 Business Update this was "...due mainly to a stronger Canadian dollar, reduced market demands, and export taxes."

Building a 17 km road through the middle of Grass River Provincial Park is not going to change the global market conditions the forestry industry is presently facing. It will not change the value of the Canadian Dollar, it is not going to convince Americans to buy more houses, and it is not going to convince our neighbors to the South to change their foreign trade policy.

The road development will however have a drastic effect on the local ecosystems. Of particular note are the endangered Woodland Caribou who calve in Grass River Provincial Park , and the bridge construction will have an impact on the fish and other wildlife in the park as well.

Tolko is heavily dependent on export trade with roughly three-quarters of its sales from outside Canada. This dependence on foreign trade is a double-edged sword that often cuts back during times of economic uncertainty. Unfortunately the laid-off Tolko workers know this all too well.

If the Premier really wanted to stabilize jobs in the forestry industry, perhaps rather than bicker about buy-American provisions he should consider implementing similar Buy-Manitoba clauses. If Manitobans were purchasing their wood products from locally derived sources the demand would be less dependent on external factors and therefore more stable. In this way Manitoba's forestry workers, and their loved ones, would be less likely to deal with the financial and emotional hardships created by price-shocks in a boom and bust industry.

Perhaps if we did this we could sustain our boreal ecosystem, protect our Provincial Parks and the woodland Caribou, and secure long-term jobs for our forestry workers at the same time.

Political Will a Prerequisite to Sustainable Planning

The title from a May 14, 2009 press release from the Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba (PCWM) says it all: "Manitoba’s Proposed Land Use Policies Encourage Urban Sprawl".

(I highly recommend that readers check of the PCWM response at: http://www.mts.net/~pcwm/plup_response.pdf)

In the PCWM response to the PLUP consultation, they quip that "...the March 2009 draft should more accurately be entitled, 'Provincial Infrastructure, Servicing and Land Use Policies' as it moves away from the focus of sustainable land use planning and concentrates more on providing infrastructure and services to low density, scattered 'urban centres', rural residential and cottage development. This will promote urban sprawl, particularly in Winnipeg’s commuter-shed. This direction is unsustainable both environmentally and economically."

Having attended the Provincial Land Use Policies (PLUP) consultation process, held at the Norwood Hotel in Winnipeg, MB on April 27th, my observations were concurrent with those of the PCWM.

In short, these regulations are pure "greenwash". Many green buzz-words are incorporated throughout the 63 page draft, but words do not give this document the strength to promote sustainable land use. It is disingenuous for the NDP to cast about carelessly these buzz-terms, while at the same time promoting the continuation of our car-dependent, water- and energy-intensive infrastructure systems.

First off, the draft regulations are nearly toothless. They are not binding laws but are merely advisory in nature. According to the section entitled "Scope and Application": "The Policies are to be read as a whole and ...are to be applied to the circumstance or consideration." (pg 8).

The only problem is PLUP are so contradictory, however, that they cannot be read as a whole.

Too elaborate I provide two examples: Infrastructure Development and The Mid-Continent Trade Corridor Concept.

INFRASTRUCTURE

The PLUP on "Infrastructure" delineates that "alternative solutions" rather than extending or expanding existing infrastructure should be considered and in particular "demand side management techniques and low impact development" should be utilized (pg 48; PA:6.6 b.).

These policies are then utterly undermined by the mandate to connect both new developments and existing self-sufficient developments to centralized pipe-based wastewater facilities (pg 49; PA6:8).

On one page the PLUP outline that we should not extend or expand our current infrastructure, and on then on the next page they instruct the extension of the same old piped wastewater infrastructure -- which is dependent on continuous quantities of water to maintain the flow and therefore wholly incompatible with demand management techniques.

How are these policy interests to be reconciled with each other?

"The pressure to extend water, sewer, roads, transit and other services and infrastructure will tax these services to an unsustainable degree. It could lead to the demand for major infrastructure expansion such as twinning the aqueduct from Shoal Lake that has a finite water supply. Winnipeg currently has a massive infrastructure deficit. To ask the city to spread its services and infrastructure throughout the region is simply not sustainable nor is it fair to the citizens..." elaborates the PCWM.

MID-CONTINENT TRADE CORRIDOR

The Development Plan By-Laws require various appropriate studies be undertaken and made public before the approval of any new development, including among them studies on "greenhouse gas emissions inventories and forecasts" as well as "climate change vulnerability/risk assessments" (pg. 20; BL: 3. f, g).

Yet the Capital Region is ensured of the 'protection to capitalize upon any identified economic development advantages' including an expanded 24-hour airport and the concept of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor. (pg 62; PA 9: 2).

Yet going back to the By-Laws where are the public studies for the greenhouse gas/climate change impacts of the Mid-Continent Trade Corridor? Clearly the construction alone, let alone the increased air, freight, and rail traffic will caused an increase in emissions.

In the PLUP section on "Agriculture" the preamble states:
"It is expected that rising fuel costs and climate change may place an increased demand on the production and protection of local food sources. Producing food for local consumption reduces food miles traveled and consequently greenhouse gases;" (pg. 31; PA 3).

Given that nearly all goods are transported by our fossil-fuel based transportation system it generally holds true that reducing the miles traveled of all goods in general will consequently reduce greenhouse gases, dependent of course on the method of transportation used.

The concept of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor however is entirely dependent on the notion of transporting goods across the globe. It is also heavily dependent on air travel, which has the heaviest footprint of any form of fossil-fuel based transportation.

So which policy directive is to prevail? The one that calls for planning to reduce greenhouse gases, or the plan to build a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor which is wholly dependent on unsustainable greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuel based transportation infrastructure?

Further to this, Downtown Winnipeg stands to lose the Greyhound Bus Depot and the Post Office Headquarters to the proposed Mid-Continent Trade Corridor. How does this fit in line the PLUP "Settlement Areas" which make a commitment to maximize investment in the downtown (PA 2: 8., 9.)

This is just two examples of how the PLUP often contradict themselves, but how can conflicting policy directives constitute a land use plan. Ultimately political considerations will prevail in the planning process. What is needed, perhaps even more than better planning policies themselves, is the political will from our politicians to commit themselves to a sincere rather than a face-value commitment to sustainable land use planning.


[Note: Draft PLUP can be read at http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/plups/draft.html or in pdf form at http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/plups/pdf/draft.pdf. Referenced by page number and policy. -- Eg. (pg 42; PA5: 3.a.) refers to page 42 pdf version; Policy Area 5: directive 3.a.]

Sugar-Coated Tokenism

It is galling how the "Do-little" NDP government pats itself on the back for small feel-good initiatives. When these initiatives are analyzed in context of the entirety of the government's activities it is clear that the Government is committed to nothing more than tokenism.

Today was the perfect example of this tendency. Conservation Minister Stan Struthers announced, that in collaboration with the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA), the province will be introducing a cell-phone recycling program.

I have no issues with this program on its own accord. It is promising to see the industry taking initiative. When cell phones end up in the land-fill they often leach toxins, and the mining of these metals have considerable environmental impacts.

It should, however, be recognized that cell phones are only one contributor to the province's growing e-waste problem. Nowadays it seems like everybody owns at least one, if not multiple computers, lapbtops, Ipods, television sets, DVD players, Blu Ray players, gaming consoles, and other consumer electronics. Consumer electronics date themselves quickly and within a couple of years they either end up in the landfill, or perhaps stowed away in someone`s closet/garage. Furthermore e-waste is but one part of a larger problem that revolves around our society's flagrantly frivolous production of so-called "waste".

Looking at today's press release on cell-phone recycling in isolation it becomes easy to believe that this government is at the vanguard of the environmental movement, but governments cannot be judged on the basis of a single press release alone. They need to be judged on the sum of their actions.

On Earth Day the government's press releases promised "...to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by up to 20 per cent over the next three years," and Doer pledged $7 million to the Nature Conservancy of Canada to enhance Natural Areas.

$7 million sounds like a substantial investment in our ecosystems, until you consider the fact that the week before the government announced an infrastructure investment in Winnipeg's Inland port of $111 million- that's nearly 16 times the value of the investment in the Nature Conservancy of Canada! Furthermore both the construction and operation of the proposed CentrePort port are likely to cause an increase in GHG emissions.

The Province has been bolstering the CentrePort Canada Corporation as a way to "develop Manitoba's economy". The idea is to turn Winnipeg into a so-called "inland port" whereby Winnipeg will be a worldwide centre of distribution. Such a plan is heavily reliant on the idea of increased international trade, and in particular a continuation and expansion of our current practices of needlessly shipping products around the world by plane and truck.

Apparently the government never read the memo that our current methods of transporting freight with fossil-fuels is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

Transportation is Manitoba's largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), creating 37% of the roughly 20 megatonnes of GHGs that Manitoba produces each year. It logically follows that promoting more international freight transport will further increase our GHG emissions.

The inland port concept is heavily dependent on the construction of a new airport and new roads. Has the government even considered the effects of such a massive construction project on the province's GHG emissions?

According to a 2001 study in The Annual Review of Energy and the Environment every tonne of concrete produced in North America creates 242 kg of Carbon emissions, and this does not include "...the CO2 emissions attributable to mobile equipment used for mining of raw material, used for transport of raw material and cement, and used on the plant site." In his recent book Heat, George Monbiot argues, "It is probably fair to say that a tonne of cement produces about a tonne of carbon dioxide.”

Clearly just the construction alone will be very taxing on Manitoba's atmosphere.

Air travel is also one of the fastest growing areas of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the David Suzuki Foundation "...since 1990, CO2 emissions from international aviation have increased 83%." Yet, in their most recent budget the government reduced the aviation fuel tax for domestic cargo flights and expanded their aviation fuel tax exemption for international cargo flights.

We are already proposing to spend billions of dollars on CentrePort. Why do we feel that it is prudent to deny Manitobans the tax revenue generated from international cargo flights to encourage aviation freight in spite of the clearly apparent ecological costs?

This government is baking a toxic cake, but because they have put some green icing on the outside, they want Manitoban's to believe that they can have their cake and eat it too. Hopefully we are smart enough to quit swallowing the Province's sugar-coated nonsense, because the more we eat, the worse it is for Manitoba in the long run.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/air_travel.asp
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.26.1.303 (subscription required)
http://www.gov.mb.ca/stem/climate/mb_doing.html
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=&item=5777
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2009-4-01&item=5703
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2009-4-01&item=5699
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2009-4-01&item=5665

Where is Manitoba on Wind Energy?

Why does this province promote hydro-electric energy at the expense of wind energy?

We wait on the sidelines to see if Australian mega-firm Babcock and Brown can pony up the $800 million to make the long awaited 300 megawatt (MW) wind farm in St. Joseph a reality, but we have no problem with our Crown Corporation taking on $18 billion dollars in debt on our behalf in addition to its nearly $7 billion of the province's $18 billion debt.

Yet, wind is cheaper than hydro! Wuskatim (generating capacity 200MW) is estimated to cost the government $1.6 billion. At $800 million for 300 MW, the St. Joseph wind farm will have more generating capacity for less capital investment.

Though hydro typically operates closer to peak generating capacity, it is not without its own costs. For instance, there are the costs of transporting the electricity to market. But more importantly, there are the ecological costs: undrinkable water, shoreline erosion, rapidly fluctuating water levels and habitat disruption. A full ecological cumulative-impact assessment of the hydroelectric dams built has never been conducted.

If hydro is so "green", why did Minnesota make its power purchase agreement conditional on Manitoba Hydro reporting how it conducts itself regarding its treatment of indigenous people and the ecological impacts of the dams? Worse yet, why did Doer and his team lobby to have the bill removed after Manitoba Hydro failed to comply with the reporting requirements?

Hydro has shown a distaste for transparency when it comes to releasing the report on the Forks Wind Power study. It seems clear that its strategy seems to be full steam ahead with hydro at any cost, while wind farm developers are needlessly buffeted by an arduous application process. Manitoba Hydro received more than 84 wind farm proposals, but only one was selected.

Why doesn't Manitoba institute a net-metering program like the one already in place in Ontario? Customers generating their own renewable electricity receive credit for any electricity that they put back into the grid. In this way the citizens of Manitoba can decide for themselves if the installation of a solar panel on their roof, or a wind turbine in their field is worthwhile.

The RM of Elton (North of Brandon), for example, has already formed the Elton Energy Co-op with the hope of producing truly clean power for the local people. This municipality, like the rest of Manitoba, are still waiting for the Manitoba Government to make wind power a reality in this province.

James Beddome
Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba

Sources:
http://www.gov.mb.ca/finance/budget08/index.html
http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=renewable.netmetering
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/03/26/minnesota-hydro.html?ref=rss
http://jimmycotton.blogspot.com/2008/12/government-of-manitoba-says-forks-wind.html
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2008-11-01&item=4795
http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wind-farms/index.html
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2007-2-01&item=1103